It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The top U.S. commander in Iraq: I expect Sunni extremists to try to creat a Mini-Tet

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   

The top U.S. commander in Iraq: I expect Sunni extremists to try to creat a Mini-Tet


news.yahoo.com

The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told The Associated Press he expected Sunni extremists to try to "pull off a variety of sensational attacks and grab the headlines to create a `mini-Tet.'"

He was referring to the 1968 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Tet offensive that undermined public support for the Vietnam War in the United States.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Shesh so much for the surge eh? As noted in the article, the insurgents are simply moving around US troops and hitting areas where they are not. Its not rocket science eh? At what point do you declare a loss here?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Loss of what? As you are well aware, I'm sure, the Tet Offensive was a complete military failure and disaster on part of the North Vietnamese Army. What is was however was a complete propaganda and media victory. That is exactly what is happening here. They cannot defeat and or engage US forces so they stage "sensational" and media grabbing attacks to try and manipulate public view and support. By giving it creditability and saying "we lost" you are in essence fulfilling the purpose of their attacks. If we learned anything from Vietnam it was this, we lost the war, the enemy did not win it...



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Wp,

Its pretty clear they had a chance to fix this early on but tried to do it on the cheap with fewer troops. Now the country really is out of controll and we are not really getting anywhere.

The Green zone is a farce with attacks occuring there daily.

The security situation is actually much worse when you think about it. The huge number of private security forces on the ground is not doing much either.

Yes it is a propaganda battle, but the actual battle is also being lost. Do you really think the iraqi governemnt will be able to controll things in a year? Two? Three?



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   
The NVA got their clocks cleaned during Tet, but it was a political victory for them. Vietnam was my father's war, so I'm quite familiar with it.

Having saidthat, I am afraid that we might see the media "declare victory" in favor of the insurgents. In as much as I support the war, it hurts me tos ee it being run so poorly. I'm not looking forward to seeing the MSM meddle in our foriegn policy by picking the winner and then going out of theri way to legitimize their 'decision.'

A badly run war is just what it sounds like. It's a badly run war. In purest political terms, I see withdrawl as inevitable. If the Republicans don't do it, they'll be spanked hard at the polls in '08. If the Dems are allowed to do it on their watch, Hillary will win a second term as 'reward' for doing what the majority claim to want. Her rewards will be doubled by a fawning MSM that won't be able to stop praising her name for "such a wise and forward-thinking position."

The insurgents in Iraq have the NVA playbook in their back pocket. I fully expect them to raise 'heck' in February as we go to the polls. then, they'll issue statements to the effect of "we can work with Hillary Clinton." that's gonna frost my cookies because the MSM will certain use it as a tie-in to justify their support for her in the November '08 elections.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Well its pretty clear that the coalition has made the same mistake that Hitler did which was to spread the military forces available to thinly across the board which meant that victory wasn't possible in any theatre. Unless the US military is enlarged ASAP something is going to have to give.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Back in the day, when Bill Clinton was in such a rush to downsize the U.S. military, I was still in college...and just a little unpopular with a few of my professors. They were all gushy about the "peace dividend," and I was dumb enough to open my big mouth about the Middle Eastern problem.

The simple fact of the matter isthat we're going to need Cold War troop levels again just because there's no real substitute for boots and helmets. Warm boides in all the right places, as my dad used to say. Trouble is, there will be a lot of resistence to this idea. Liberals are going to make the assumption that going back to Cold War troop levels would be a show of agression, and it would somehow validate the notion that Slick Willy had really done us a dis-service when he released all those troops.

Much of what we need doesn't have to be all combat arms. Most of it will actually be support. the army is right now suffering from a lack of support. Once we have disengaged from this fight, we're still going to need four years to refit the army we've got. When we go back to finish what we started, I'm expecting to see a much improved force.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   
It is true that downsizing the US military wasn't one of Clinton best moves but here is thing post 9-11 US leaders knew what forces they had available to work with and yet they still went into Iraq before the war in Afghanistan was won.
Hitler only budgeted six weeks to defeat the Soviet Union coalition leaders relied on there troops coming home around three months after Saddam was deposed.

The tragic thing is that this time the mistake has been made by the side that stands for freedom and democracy.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
It's a regrettable mistake, to be sure. With many additional regrets, I think that it'll be hard to watch the GOP pay for this one.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join